engagement_report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'View' implies read-only behavior and the contents are partially described, but there is no disclosure of permissions, pagination, default week behavior, date scoping, or response structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the colon-delimited list efficiently summarizes report contents. It is concise and readable, though the terseness contributes to gaps documented elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do more. It gives a useful sketch of report contents but omits the meaning and default of week and does not fully describe the returned report structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has a single integer parameter, week, with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain it at all. 'The week's caps' hints at weekly context but does not clarify whether week is an ISO week number, offset, date, or defaulted value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a report view over the engagement log and lists what it contains: every action, totals vs caps, and stop state. It is specific enough to distinguish the resource, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling engagement_log tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Daily-report view' implies a reporting context, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of engagement_log or other sibling tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.